Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How to breathe in fewer microplastics in your home

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 100 posts

Re: How to breathe in fewer microplastics in your home

#31

Post by OutOfHere »

sigmoid10 wrote: post #21
strogonoff wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> BPA is a known endocrine disruptor. Although initially considered to be a weak environmental estrogen, more recent studies have demonstrated that BPA may be similar in potency to estradiol in stimulating some cellular responses. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21605673/ > In 2017 the European Chemicals Agency concluded that BPA should be listed as a substance of very high concern due to its properties as an endocri…

This is exactly the kind of fear mongering reporting I was talking about and explains the general public's warped perception described in the research review I linked above. If you look at the brains of dead people with dementia, you'll also find more aluminum, which has caused people to panic about antiperspirants. But there is zero actual causal evidence that Al exposure causes dementia, if you do the science right…

The aluminum relations are easily explained with the observation that healthy kidneys excrete aluminum well, whereas unhealthy kidneys don't and so it accumulates. There might also be similar variations in aluminum deposition in the brain depending on the brain's innate ability to wash out chemicals. In contrast, the excretory mechanisms of plastics seems less trustworthy.

The user is deliberately and blatantly ignoring a wealth of scientific literature that exists. Also, plastics come bundled with numerous other harmful classes of chemicals, e.g. phthalates, bisphenols, etc. The risk is not merely in the brain, but also in blood vessels, including those adjacent to the heart.

Beware the plastics industry shills on this page. They will have you ignore the science, become infertile, and then have you die, all for their temporary gain.

Re: How to breathe in fewer microplastics in your home

#32

Post by sigmoid10 »

dijit wrote: post #10
rusch wrote: post #2

I wonder when and if microplastics will get it's Asbestos moment. Obviously they are not as carcinogenic, but it seems we don't have the full picture, and microplastics are present at an insanely higher degree than asbestos where.

I think microplastics has been directly linked to the decrease of male hormones and an sperm quality. source: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12989-022-00453-2 So, it's having an effect of some kind.

This was in mice that were given up to 1000 mg/L of microplastics in their drinking water. If you have this level of contamination, you probably should stop whatever it is you are doing anyways, disregarding your testicles. But even then, there is no evidence for this in humans. Research shows that most microplastics simply passes through your digestive system unhindered.

Re: How to breathe in fewer microplastics in your home

#33

Post by sigmoid10 »

OutOfHere wrote: post #31
sigmoid10 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly the kind of fear mongering reporting I was talking about and explains the general public's warped perception described in the research review I linked above. If you look at the brains of dead people with dementia, you'll also find more aluminum, which has caused people to panic about antiperspirants. But there is zero actual causal evidence that Al exposure causes dementia, if you do the science right…

The aluminum relations are easily explained with the observation that healthy kidneys excrete aluminum well, whereas unhealthy kidneys don't and so it accumulates. There might also be similar variations in aluminum deposition in the brain depending on the brain's innate ability to wash out chemicals. In contrast, the excretory mechanisms of plastics seems less trustworthy. The user is deliberately and blatantly ignor…

It doesn't change the fact that there is no actual causal evidence. Perhaps the demented brains simply suck at flushing out microplastics as well. If you ever find people with more microplastics exposure have more dementia (like they did for asbestos and lung cancer), then you're onto something. But no rigorous study has found this yet. And if they do, you will hear of it immediately for sure, given how much reporting there is for microplastics=bad for you.

Re: How to breathe in fewer microplastics in your home

#34

Post by alt227 »

OutOfHere wrote: post #29
schiffern wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>microwaving in plastic bowls More generally, never let hot food touch plastics. The high temperature is what damages the plastic surface, not anything special about microwaves. For instance the same thing happens with plastic tea bags in hot water: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004565352...

Some people use plastic cutting-trays / knives / forks /spoons / cups / jugs, which also are some things to avoid. I would also avoid all nonstick pans and utensils, as they're lined with PFAS which is worse than plastic, and slowly it will break off into the food. Beware the industry shills on this forum, as they will have you ignore the fact that ingesting PFAS is well known to result in higher blood levels of PFAS…

Fully agree with you, however eating small bits of PFAS from pans seems to be pretty non toxic.

Even in the recent Veritasium video about it they said that unless the chemical was heated to above ~300 degress C if will pass through the human digestive system without causing any harm.

https://youtu.be/SC2eSujzrUY

Re: How to breathe in fewer microplastics in your home

#35

Post by alt227 »

a3w wrote: post #28

Half the microplastics in our body is from cars. So move to a car-free city district or remote cabin (and then driving train+bike so not to contribute to the problem?).

If cars are causing microplastic pollution, Im sure bikes and trains are too.

Im seems using rubber/plastic compounds for tyres and brakes is always going to cause this issue on any vehicle.

Re: How to breathe in fewer microplastics in your home

#37

Post by bertil »

a3w wrote: post #28

Half the microplastics in our body is from cars. So move to a car-free city district or remote cabin (and then driving train+bike so not to contribute to the problem?).

The silence from that from media that make a lot of money selling ads for cars is becoming quite suspicious.

Re: How to breathe in fewer microplastics in your home

#39

Post by scotty79 »

Carrok wrote: post #12
dijit wrote: post #6

Realistically, the best thing you can do to reduce your microplastics intake seems to be to avoid microwaving in plastic bowls and to avoid using plastic bottles for soft drinks and water. (Though cans actually use a thin film of plastic inside too.. so, maybe just avoid packaged water?) Beyond your personal intake though there's bigger fish. Car tyres are the #1 source for microplastics entering rivers, and it's not…

Curious why you say this when the linked article says the best thing you can do is avoid synthetic textiles

The article focuses on the airways. The commenter probably takes more hollistic approach and you are gonna eat way more palstic in yoir life than you breathe in.

Re: How to breathe in fewer microplastics in your home

#40

Post by dijit »

sigmoid10 wrote: post #32
dijit wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think microplastics has been directly linked to the decrease of male hormones and an sperm quality. source: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12989-022-00453-2 So, it's having an effect of some kind.

This was in mice that were given up to 1000 mg/L of microplastics in their drinking water. If you have this level of contamination, you probably should stop whatever it is you are doing anyways, disregarding your testicles. But even then, there is no evidence for this in humans . Research shows that most microplastics simply passes through your digestive system unhindered.

Yeah, typically we test adverse effects in mice before doing trials on larger animals.

That we haven't observed such extreme behaviour in a scientific way in humans doesn't mean it isn't there, it's just that we haven't yet scientifically observed anything. That there is some evidence in favour of it having adverse effects somewhat defeats the idea that it's "provably non-harmful", which is your current stance.

It might be interesting; instead of downplaying the harm, to see if we can observe any patterns that fit with these findings over the course of human history with the introduction of microplastics...

and if we were to do that, we'd find some interesting correlation, even if it's not provably causation yet.

https://www.healio.com/news/endocrinology/20120325/generatio...

We also know that plastics are a source of hormone disrupting chemicals; https://health.clevelandclinic.org/how-environmental-toxins-...

Bury your head I guess? Just make sure it's not a polyester pillowcase.

Post reply on HN